Friday, September 30, 2016

MOTTOIt will be explained in a few daysDAILY NOTESa) Trying to discuss constructively and positively with Ed StormsWe disagree but I hope on long term this will be useful.

Peter, I'm repeatedly frustrated because you and other people will find a way to reject what I say by using a distortion of what I actually said. I did not say Rossi has "captured the funds". I said that he has sent people on a wild goose chase by claiming the Ni+LiAlH4 mixture makes nuclear energy at high temperature. He has provided absolutely no reason to accept this idea. Nevertheless, at least 6 laboratories are trying to prove his claim, thereby wasting money and talent. Dear Ed, I misunderstood that you told about funds, so I retract it and apologize. But other people push on this falsity.But I totally disagree with the wild goose chase. All NiH LENR methods in gas phase are based on contacting thee metal with hydrogen, however the reaction partner must be prepared for the interaction. Hydrogen must be made active, atomic, negative ion as at Piantelli, Rydberg hydrogen as at Defkalion while the metal must be made more receptive - having a lot of NAE or a mechanism for continuous NAE genesis- but you do not believe it. It was observed and it is natural that some metallic hydrides are delivering hydrogen in an active state, nothing unexpeected that Rossi has tried with LiAlH4- a nasty stuff by the way but a metallic hydride we have also used in reducing reactions. He has remarked that it is powerful and- if we believe tha Lugano anal;yses and something that Hadjichristos has said but it was forgotten because his technology has failed- Li and Ni are able to enter in nuclear interactions not reactions- the identity of the atoms is kept only isotopicity changes,. Pintelli has observed clear nuclear reactions at say, 400 C results published in peer reviewed journal, then why should atomic reactions & interactions be impossible at 650, 850, 1300C?About wasting money and talent, by replicating Rossi, we can speak a lot. Many results are clearly positive just excess heat is till additive not multiplicative as Rossi claims, inclusive for the 1MW Test. This is IP under siege but not wild goose chase. See his patents too. You cannot deny ab ovo a phenomenon just because there are no nnocracks in the system, only nanocracks can be NAE? Ed continues:The flaw in his claim is that temperature does not initiate the nuclear process. It simply increases the rate of a process that is already underway. Once LENR can start, the increased temperature will cause the rate to gradually increase. Therefore, before any power is detected at high temperature, some power must be produced at lower temperatures. This behavior is not being observed. Therefore, LENR is not being observed. In fact, Rossi claimed to see this effect at low temperatures, which caused a problem with control, as I describe in my book on page 216. This published fact is ignored by the people working at high temperatures. You see, in his book you do not want to see, Steve Krivit is speaking about LENRs and so did I in my essays on this blog. I was indoctrinated with dialecyic materialism snd perhpas its fundamental thesis" quantitative accumulation leads to quality leaps" is not so bad and for the range of increasing temperatures more variants of LENR will/can appear. So what Rossi has said for his older systems i npt more valid for the newer ones. what yo say about the role of temperature goes probably in the frame of a given system. Rossi is not aspiring for the Nobel Prize he wants to create industrial heat generators.

Your reading of the literature is very selective, as is apparently common in this field. You are like a person who takes Chem 101 and thinks they now understand chemistry. Presently, over 2000 papers must be read and understood before a person is qualified to study LENR. Most people in the field have not even read my books where much of the required information is summarized.Dear I gfind this unjust and it hurts me. I dare to ask if my reading of LENR literature is more selective than yours. First for the last 6 years almost I have signalled here all the new LENR publications and have tried but not succeeded to read all worth profound reading. Second, I am not monolingual and I can read untranslated papers in Russian- say Vysotskii, Urutskoev, Bazhutov, Parkhomov, Kirkinskii etc and discuss with the authors, in Italian as Piantelli's, and also in French and German. And I have not ignored papers as those of Piantelli or my own 1992 and 1995 papersAnd let's admit that not all the 2000 published papers are relevant for understanding even PdD wet...non multa sed multum. What do you think, where a re my damaging information gaps, what I am unable to understand due to insufficient documentation?

I recognize and admire your experience in industry. In every case, the basic science describing what you were doing was known for over 150 years. You even admit this information is lacking about LENR, yet you insist that a scale up is valuable and that Rossi knows how to do this. Ross has shown no understanding of even basic nuclear science or calorimetry. I see no indication he understands LENR. His efforts are like the attempts to fly before the Wright Brothers identified the rules of lift and control. And, by the way, they got this information from studies done on a small scale. They did not try to build a 747 as Rossi is attempting to do.

Nothing more false than this and I give you an example My main work, PhD prizes, fame came from my research in suspension poly-vinylchloride. I was born in 1937 and PVC-s was invented in 1936- I have met and spoke with one of the inventors at Wacker Recklinghausen in 1980. The instrument most important for my study of particle morphology and morphogenesis- the scanning electron microscope has appeared in 1968 and I got my first images in 1971 from JEOL Sweden. All the technologies were radically changed and imprved in those years, Do you can imagine the difference between mercury cathode and membrane based chlor alkali electrolysis or oxo processes catalyzed by Co or Rh? You have false a idea about the relationship between basic science and technology. Technology is much more than applied science.I have arrived to hate the word calorimetry mainly seeing some technology illiterate people claiming to be experts in calorimetryAt the 1MWit is about an energy balance nada, nix, no, calorimetry.You do not envisage the quality leaps in aviation? You have not wept at the death of the Concorde?I wonder, is there anything we can agree about LENR?

We agree that we love it, we want to see it prosperous and applied iat commercial scale just e have very different opinions about the extent in which its existential and development problems are solved now. Therefore we think differently about what we have to, but what is marvelous we both think something most be done!

DAILY NEWS

1) Papers from ICCF20 Thanks to Vladimir Vysotsky! The first one is amust-read I think.

Formation of Coherent Correlated States -
the Universal Method
of Explanation of LENR Paradoxes
and
Solving of LENR Problems

!!! Received first From the Russian Officil LENR site THE ABSTRACTS OF SSICCF20:http://ssiccf-20.xmu.edu.cn/files/SSICCF20_Abstracts.pdfLENR IN CONTEXT-1Incomprehensible' birth of supercrystal explainedhttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160928213047.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29Date:September 28, 2016Source:Utrecht UniversitySummary:Two years ago, a research team published an article explaining how they had created a material with unique and extremely interesting electronic characteristics. In this 'supercrystal', the electrons move almost with the speed of photons, and the electric current can be switched on and off. This makes it ideal for ultra-fast electronics. But at the time, the researchers were at a loss to explain how this 'supercrystal' obtained its unique structure. Now they have unraveled the mystery, and it appears to involve a completely different mechanism for crystal formation.

http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/decisions-are-emotionalnot-logical5 Problem-Solving Skills All Professionals Needhttp://www.payscale.com/career-news/2016/09/5-problem-solving-skills-professionals-needthese are the 5 skills: - The ability to be both practical and creative.- Be positive.- The ability to change your mind.- Clear and articulate communication.- -A willingness to speak and to listen.-

Thursday, September 29, 2016

In some circumstances, "prejudice" is just an euphemism for "paid Opinion".DAILY NOTES Discussing with Ed Storms about big leaps vs. small steps in innovation.Re the first point of my dispute with Simon Derricutt, Ed Storms says:

While big leaps are impressive and sometimes happen, this kind of progress ONLY happens after the technology is mastered and is well understood. The required understanding ALWAYS takes place on a small scale. We have not yet mastered LENR well enough to apply it on a large scale. That is why the effort Rossi is making is so hopeless and self defeating. You surely know this, so why do you keep arguing otherwise?

The truth is complex, I have worked in pilot plants for years and their role is to make your blunders on a small scale and your profits on a great scale. But I think real breakthrough are characterized by quality jumps. So energy density at classic LENR is up to say, 10W/gram while LENR+ ( OK, you do not believe it exists) is >1000W/gram material. Quite a difference.

You say the effort made by Rossi is hopeless; hopeless for whom? In case Rossi demonstrates at the Trial too that the Plant has worked as Rossi says and he indeed starts producing commercial E-Cats, then his efforts were not futile. Are you absolutely certain this will not happen? "How" absolutely?

Rossi has sent people on a hopeless path that is wasting talent and money. Rather than rational discussion, we are distracted by emotional reactions and ignorant evaluation. Rather than reading the literature and asking questions of people who actually understand the process, unrestrained speculation is applied. The situation is increasingly like the political situation in the US. Rational thinking has become a lost art.

Plese let's be fair- Rossi can be a sinner, but he has NOT sent people on any path, of desperation or not. I also disagree with the idea that he has captured the funds of LENR. LENR was nowhere as funding when Rossi surfaced in in 2011, and he attracted attention to the field, ergo has contributed to increased funding. Good LENR researchers going on their honest and scientific way (long live the Scientific Method!) cannot be influenced by an entrepreneur as Rossi and they know their way to success, understanding LENR first and then developing it step by step to a technology. And if we are looking to some of the best- say you, ENECO, SKINR (in prat) it happened so.

READING THE LITERATURE- these words bring me the sweetest remembrances I am proud of= how we hve discovered Total Documentation - a wonderful story and for the product of my professional life, by great efforts we have succeed ed to be well documented.- books, papers, patents, grey literature - extending it with reverse engineering of tens of samples of PVC-s. So we had a solid basis to original research

And, by Jove! it was before the Internet and the Web,

But now in LENR reading the literature, what means it? Take the best and most scientific book- yours. You give wise advises, but how to apply them in practice? Where are the great successes already obtained convincing the m=newcomer to go your way? Take then the newest book- it must be the most advanced in principle, it uis written bt Steven Krivit reputed journalist.. But he says completely different things.

Take understanding- you have lots of papers, but the best known theorist is Peter Hagelstein in the USA) he does not agree with you. Are other LENR authorities, Mc Kubre and Nagel your followers? Who possesses the truth who knows the way?

I ma verty sorry to say it but the literature in LENR you read is broken and auto-contradictory, it is difficult to use it in experimental work.

As you well know, we two hve very different evaluations of the KNOWN/UNKNON ratio in our field. You believe in the internal logic (one) and unicity of LENR, I believe in in its otherness, complexity, diversity, dynamicity, metamorphosis and inexhaustible creativity.

I think that now Science alone is unable to solve the problems of LENR- understanding and development but technology can help, therefore- I know this is unpardonable I think Rossi's shortcut can work. I said "why technology first? in 1995. We have to discuss what can help you reading the literature of LENR, and what remains still to be discovered..

Answer from Simon Derricutt

You can read Simon Derricutt's answer to my yesterday message at Comments

Long answer in 3 later 4, now 5 parts, he has too strong certainties, therefore what I wanted to discuss the "total scam 20 kW in, 20kW out"- ttechnical aspects is not feasible with this partner, sorry.Perhaps later, if...

LENR IN CONTEXT-1Scientists visualize quantum behavior of hot electrons for first time

Date:September 28, 2016

Source:University of Birmingham

Summary:

Scientists have, for the first time, identified a method of visualizing the quantum behavior of electrons on a surface. The findings present a promising step forward towards being able to manipulate and control the behavior of high energy, or ‘hot’, electrons.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

It can be a good short term business, but... Too many parallel lines in LENR...DAILY NOTESa) What are the two Mottoes about?The first one is sad. When after 1989 Romania became again a capitalist, normal country I have discovered very fast that the capital unpardonable sin in this regime is to be poor and made great efforts to get rid of this status. Now this has evolved and the correct statement today is "people feel guilty if they have less money and assets than they want" The effect- locally and globally it is lot of corruption. People do ugly harmful things for money including killings and false witnessing. LENR seems to not be immune to this, one of the symptoms can be the sudden, total spectacular change of opinion & position & tone regarding the main Conflict from the field.The second Motto is about things that cannot meet in LENR but had to. I will tell more about this in the coming days.Answering to a comment by Simon DerricuttI have no idea who Simon s, however he seems to have a positive reputation- and it was said he is good thinker. Habitant of the IH Planet for the time giving but ..who knows, I dare to hope he will not use insults and will not refer to imaginary diagrams and manufactured proofs that I have to swallow passively.. I will answer to his comment:He speaks about"honest mistakes" and "conservation of energy" too somewhat out side the main subjects In order to achieve a
commercially-viable form of LENR, it makes sense to me to see what works to a
small extent and try to improve it. If we have something that works reliably,
it also aids the theoreticians work out why, which can then lead to a better
experiment. Trying to replicate a process where the data is obviously false is
not a good path. Limited resources are better spent in replicating experiments where
the data is honest and believable.Dear Simon, this is in my opinion a capital error, in technology/inovation the things do not work in this way. The solution is usually based NOT on incremental, step by step increases but on sudden quality leaps, not only on changes but on deeep transformations. See, very recently I offered this :Learn from the Best: Google’s Nine Principles of Innovationhttp://innovationexcellence.com/blog/2016/09/19/learn-from-the-best-googles-nine-principles-of-innovation/ Please read about no. 3. "10X better than ten percent." Believe me, I have personal experience in innovation, do not follow the dogma! What you think is good for development not for real innovation.For
Rossi, how the data was faked is not really relevant. There's no point in
arguing how it was done. If the heat had been produced, it would have had
obvious consequences that have not been noted.It is not about Rossi- it is about a technology than can be VERY important. You speak about "faked" as about an axiom; the Test lasted a year and nobody told it was a fake. Do you seem to have absolute certainty it was a fake- ab ovo- the problem has an imposed solution, isn't it? But if it was a fake, than it is obvious that what the leaked ERV Report in Exhibit 5 says - for 10 months mean values- 1398kg/hor water, 68.7C warm water converted in 102.8 C steam is not OK. If as it was said the result was simply 20kw in 20 kw out- I hope you can easily calculate it- means actually 31 liters of water per hour. How was the flowmeter convinced to show 1398 instead of 31? Such a difference is easy to be remarked.You have not seen the ERV Report (I don't know why IH does not makes it public if its inded a catastrophey- think about the flowing- the inner temperatures of the ECats are also shown there- are they as low as the steam temperature or more hundreds of degrees as if the thing works? Still thinking 20kW in, 20 kw out? It was said you are a thinking being..I'm thus
no longer interested in following the Rossi saga. I do however still expect
that others will succeed. LENR research is alive and well. More parts of the
puzzle are emerging, such as the metal hydride patent that Alan Smith
unearthed.LENR country is a free one, you can be interested in what you decide to. It is clear that what we need is serious, powerful competition for Rossi's claims. But- back to Google's principle no 3 it is additive excess heat vs, multiplicative excess heat.It is
still possible that there is indeed some transmutation happening in Rossi's
reactors, though there is as yet no clean evidence about that. It is not
possible that they produced the amount of excess heat he claims in the Doral
test.I think you well know about the leaked result- analysis made in Sweden, very significant isotopic shifts. The authenticity of the sample can be denied, however the plant in Doral can furnish thousands of ash samples for analysis. myriads of proofs.

Please think over the situation and your position, things can be complex., I hope you are not in the sphere of influence of the first Motto.DAILY NEWS1) Edmund Storms' paper for ICCF20I have received a poster paper aimed for ICCF20 and I have obtained the kind permission of the author to offer it to my Readers- as it is; very condensed great idea/words ratio. My thanks to the Author!
A Description of the
Mechanism Causing LENREdmund Storms
ICCF-20
• All theories rest on assumptions. • These assumptions must be clearly
stated and be consistent with
observed behavior. • Progress in understanding LENR
is hampered by the repeated failure
to state and justify the assumptions
used to explain the behavior. 2
The assumptions on which
this theory of LENR is based
are as follows: • The LENR process cannot take place
in a normal chemical structure but
instead requires a unique and rarely
formed modification called here the
nuclear active environment (NAE). • All observed LENR takes place in the
same kind of NAE. • Formation of the NAE follows all the
laws known to apply to chemical
processes. • The nuclear mechanism must
function in collaboration with the
conditions existing in the NAE. • The nuclear mechanism involves
fusion and transmutation by all
isotopes of hydrogen. 3
These assumptions are so well
supported by observed behavior that
any explanation in conflict should
clearly explain why this conflict
exists. LENR has two faces: Chemistry
creates the unique conditions and
physics describes the nuclear process.
The phenomenon can only be
explained by a marriage between
these two sciences with LENR being
the offspring. The theory needs to be applied what is
real about the material not to the ideal
conditions imagined to be present. 4
The logical consequences of
these assumptions are as
follows: • The LENR process involves two
separate steps. The nuclear process
cannot take place without the NAE
being formed by modification of the
normal structure. Consequently,
identification and creation of the
NAE must be the first goal in the
reliable creation of the LENR effect. • Once the NAE has been identified,
this understanding can be applied to
creating the NAE in all materials in
which LENR might be initiated. • A crack having a gap of a few
nanometers is proposed to be the
NAE in this theory. 5
Other assumptions and
consequences can be found
at: • “The explanation of low energy
nuclear reaction”, Infinite Energy
Press, Concord, NH, 2014.
(amazon.com) • “Explaining Cold Fusion”, J. Cond.
Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015) 295-304.
• “How the explanation of LENR can
be made consistent with observed
behavior and natural laws”, Current
Science 108 (2015) 531-4.• “How Basic Behavior of LENR can
Guide a Search for an Explanation”
, J.
Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 20
(2016) 1–39 (to be published).

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Please help me and my readers by sending me your papers, posters, presentations, slides, videos- whatever- so that I can publish them here in the very day they are presented at Xiamen or Sendai.

An anticipated great Thank you!

Peter

DAILY NOTES

On the LENR Forum in the known threads I continued to discuss with my opponents and nothing changes- their real motivation is domination- everybody must think what they think. Facts and logic ignored by them.This is the tactic, they claim repeatedly, with increasing vigor:

Nothing is what it seems, so you are not able to see the truth. However I will explain it to you and you MUST believe me!Good as tactic, but on long term- strategy not, they will learn that if in mechanics reaction is equal with action, in psychology the reaction can be much greater than action. Without my fight even they will see how the resistance of independently thinking skilled people will sweep them away. See the first Motto.

What motivates Abd ul Rahman Lomax in LENR

for myself, I am motivated by several things.

1. When I see someone who has earned respect through years of hard work being attacked because he disagrees with Peter Gluck, I may defend him. I have previously posted a link to DefendEachOther, a long-standing internet concept; in this, it is not our responsibility to defend ourselves, and it is often counterproductive to do so. It is our responsibility to defend others. I defended Rossi against intemperate attack from Steve Krivit, and I don't regret that at all. It was noise, distracting from the real situation. What critics like Krivit and Mary Yugo point out is often obvious, but reality is more complex than the models they are attached to. Criminals, as an example, can be more trustworthy than ordinary people, sometimes. I've been a prison chaplain, I'll testify to this.

2. CMNS is a scientific field and requires a scientific approach. Science approaches "fact" with caution. Law is actually similar, but law is perhaps more socially developed. Science is also social. When I have knowledge that is uncommon, I consider I have some obligation to share it. Right now, I have uncommon knowledge about Rossi v. Darden, because I have studied those documents over and over to write about them. I have uncommon knowledge of the history of cold fusion (not unique knowledge and Jed Rothwell and Peter Gluck have been around a lot longer than I have, in the field as to being active. Nevertheless, I came in and approached the field with some new perspectives, and so I saw things that had sometimes been missed. I write about them.)

3. Because it's there. Because I am involved with LENR. I see things and write about them. To an extent, this is an addiction. As an addiction, I may engage in it out of balance. Hence this is all a topic of discussion with counselors and therapists, friends and family.

4. I want to see Peter happy for the rest of his life, and the way he writes, he's not happy. He is far too attached to conditions that he cannot control. For some years before Rossi v. Darden, it was obvious that Peter had identified "LENR+" -- which can only refer to Rossi's work because Peter's idea was this was "stronger" -- as the hope that he might see successful LENR before he dies. Peter is only a little older than I. I'm not worried. What I see is that I have already been successful, and LENR is on its way. How far it will get before I die does not matter so much to me. I have already reached goals that are satisfying. There may be more -- maybe even much more -- but it's not a necessity for me.

5. If I become peevish and start doing what Peter started to do, I sincerely hope that my friends will warn and restrain me. So I am doing for Peter what I would want my friends to do for me, hoping he will recognize what is being said to him.Long, with many mixed elements

It was a longer discussion and my conclusion is that it is impossible to discuss with people using invented stories, diagrams and other facts, who have completely different standards of truth and a different sense of reality and values than myself, - so I broke the diplomatic relations with my two opponents. My compassion to IH for using such ineffective propagandists.

Mr Andrea Rossi,Can you explain which has been the inspiration that made you arrive to the present results?Cheers,RinoAndrea RossiSeptember 26, 2016 at 7:09 PM

Rino:The spark has been started from the first announcement of F&P. Eventually, after I reaized that the electrolysis was conducting nowhere, the idea to use nickel as a catalyzer of compounds with hydrogen came from the enormous work, and experience, I made with Ni as a chemical catalyzer in hydrogenation processes when I made experiments for my thermolytic plants from 1976 to 1994. Obviously the matter was totally different, but ideas and intuitions make tunnels between arguments apparently strange to each other.Warm Regards,A.R.

A low-temperature process has been developed that has opened a window on the ability to combine incompatible materials, such as ceramics and plastics, into new, useful compound materials.Measuring Scientific Impact Beyond Citation Countshttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/september16/patton/09patton.htmlSoon Scientometrics will be necessary for LENR tooLENR IN CONTEXT-2